rendelharris

Elphinstone's Army Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Am I the only person offended by EDMP late night > posting, feeling frisky and his X box is broken? > and don't be telling me to lighten up. There is > enough tension on the sreets without a sexual > predator being encouraged. > > I thought this site was self policing. The OP is > well out of order posting such an inappropriate > remark and totally on the wrong sort of forum. Well said, Elph, I agree.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I'm sure it varies from one individual to another (size of role, ability to organise workload etc) Would I be correct in inferring that you think a teacher who works long hours is simply inefficient in organising their workload? If so you're simply wrong, obviously some teachers are better organised than others (I was one of the desperately disorganised I'm afraid) but while that might save a few hours here and there, the weight of paperwork, marking and preparation required makes very long hours absolutely unavoidable.

DuncanW Wrote: > The majority of teachers do not support the > strike. 24.5% of NUT members voted for it. 91.7% of those who voted, voted for the strike. In any ballot you can only go by what those who chose to participate voted and you can't extrapolate that all those who didn't vote were against it. I don't like the result of last week's referendum, can I assume that the 28% who didn't vote were all on the side of Remain and so the ballot is invalid?

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???? has a point. I have several teachers in my > family who don't realise what it's like to work in > the private sector. 60 hours a week is pretty > normal for 'career' jobs, only (as one of my > sisters points out) she gets three months holiday > a year, never works longer than seven weeks > without a break, and a final salary pension at the > end that would need a bigger private pension pot > than the rest of us could buld up on our own. > Given how recent events are likely to affect jobs > and pensions for many people I'm struggling to > sympathise with a strike right now. Speaking as a former teacher and husband of a current one, with reference to the holidays, yes teachers get more but a lot of that is swallowed by preparation and paperwork - my wife will generally put in at least three days in school at the start of the summer holidays and the best part of a week before the school year starts, not to mention the work she does at home and the courses she takes at her own expense (she teaches Design & Technology and is continually learning new skills to improve her offer to her pupils). I don't accept that sixty hours a week is "normal" for most career jobs - friends who are lawyers, architects and even a junior doctor don't do those hours, I've asked - and in any case she puts in more like eighty hours (seriously, she gets to school at 7.30, leaves at 6.30, does three hours' marking, reporting and prep when she comes home and does roughly five to ten hours' work over the weekend). This for a starting salary of ?22,244 (nationwide), compared to the average graduate starting salary of ?29,000, and in a profession where a classroom teacher will never get more than ?45,000ish, even after thirty years' service. It's worth remembering also that the strike isn't just about pay, it's about the funding for schools, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies has predicted will drop by 8% in real terms up to 2020. This will mean larger class sizes, fewer resources, less chance of new buildings etc, all things which will have a direct impact on your children's quality of education; it may surprise some to know that lazy greedy teachers do actually care passionately about such things - passionately enough to give up a day's pay to make their point. I personally disagree with the strike, not for the reasons others have stated above but because successive Tory governments have proved that they are entirely immune to strike action. But please, can we stop directing our ire at those who are working incredibly hard for your children and focus it on those who deserve it, a government which has meddled with and forced unnecessary cuts on the education system, partly on ideological grounds and partly so its chums in big business can make a killing from academies. Sorry for the long post but obviously I feel passionately about the misrepresentation of teachers and their motives. One final point, to which I've never been given a satisfactory answer: if teaching is such an absolute doddle, with such munificent pay and featherbed T&Cs, why aren't graduates flocking to sign up? Why is there a recruiting crisis? Rendel

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's the "worthiness" and entitlement that gets > to me furious teacher. This strike is on a 25% > turnout and is just belligerent militancy from The > NUT who think they are the miners or something I > don't owe you anything, your choice what you do go > and get a job in the private sector doing > something else if you hate me and teaching my kids > so much. Get your head down ????, you need a soothing night's sleep.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apparently it is now 12 miles. > > Though that still doesn't stop them saying, > "sorry, I'm not going that way". And they wonder > why Uber is so popular. True that.

Lynne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I saw an old map that said it's four miles from C > Cross to East Dulwich Rd., and that was the > boundary for taxis.Was it compulsory to accept a > fare if there were no obvious reasons for > declining one? Still is - a black cab is supposed to take you wherever you ask provided it's no further than six miles and doesn't take them outside their licensing area.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow - there some real apologists on here! Some real cheap and childish insults too.

DaveR Wrote: > Oh, that's all right then. If that's what he says > he meant after he's caused a political firestorm, > it must be true. The alternative being that we take what you say he meant as true, of course. As per previous, if you choose to interpret what he said as equating Israel and ISIS that's up to you, but don't say that he did so explicitly, because he didn't.

By the way: "A spokesman for Corbyn later clarified that the Labour leader had in his speech been referring to states of an Islamic character, giving the examples of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran or Hamas in Gaza." So in fact explicitly NOT equating Israel and Islamic State.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "If I say that I don't hold individual members of > the Labour party for Corbyn's mistakes, any more > than I hold individual members of the Tory party > responsible for Cameron's mistakes, does that mean > I'm explicitly equating Corbyn with Cameron? No it > doesn't." > > Yes, it does, and correctly, in two ways. Firstly > it recognises their equivalent status i.e. as > leaders of their respective parties, and the > nature of those parties. Secondly, it doesn't > differentiate between the roles, responsibilities > and actions of each of them - it implies that > their mistakes (whatever they might be) are > qualitatively comparable. > > Now apply that reasoning to Corbyn's statement. You need to learn the difference between "explicitly states" and "implies." You have chosen to infer that Corbyn is equating ISIS and Israel. He has not explicitly done so. You can argue that that's what he means if you want, but to say that he has explicitly equated them - as you have - is simply untrue.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He explicitly equates Israel (all of Israel - not > just Zionists, or Netanyahu) with Islamic State He really didn't. He said that individual Jews (specifically referencing those in Britain) are no more responsible for the actions of Israel than individual Muslims are responsible for the actions of those who claim to run Islamic states. If I say that I don't hold individual members of the Labour party for Corbyn's mistakes, any more than I hold individual members of the Tory party responsible for Cameron's mistakes, does that mean I'm explicitly equating Corbyn with Cameron? No it doesn't.

I think if you want it to be obliterated completely you'd have to ask the moderators - if you just want what you've said deleted just go back and edit it, replace your content with the word deleted.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > . > > Louisa. ;-)

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You both seem to be playing the editing game Where I've edited it's because I've noticed a spelling mistake, robbin adds great swathes of new stuff - his post at 2.40 above originally read "Why are you complaining then, you're quids in!" Thinking he was being unusually friendly and having a laugh, I replied to that. After I replied I found he'd added seven new lines, so it now looks as though I've refused to answer his (untrue) point. He did the same thing to me the other day, I think I'll give up on trying to debate with him, it's no fun if people want to win a point so badly (why! It's a local forum for God's sake!) that they have to resort to underhand tactics like that.

robbin, please stop editing your posts to add extra information after I've replied to them, it's a cheap trick and makes you look desperate.

Seabag Wrote: My heart > sank further at a text-image his wife sent from > nearby Bromley. > Basically it was a sign written on chipboard in > felt pen, and propped outside of the door of a > place > > It said something to the effect "British passport > holders only. Any E.U holders can f*ck off and the > channel is that way (with an arrow pointing)" Bloody revolting. Hopefully whatever twat wrote this will go bankrupt, as until the negotiations are over we're all still holding EU passports.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's like a question someone once asked me: why > do we get IN a car, but ON a bus? I was always taught that one gets into something where one is immediately seated (in a car, in a canoe) or but onto something where one walks to one's seat (on a plane, on a bus) or anything that's not enclosed (on a bicycle). But my grammar books are silent on the issue, so I don't think there's a definite prepositional rule one can point to.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What are you complaining about then! You are quids > in! For the moment, and I confess I've sent out a few "hurry-up" invoices this week to try and get as many payments in as possible before the advantageous rates disappear. However, I like to think I can think of the greater good also - and it won't do me much good to have 20% more bang for my buck if the rest of the economy heads for a downturn, in terms of higher taxes and/or worse services.

"No need to get snippy" says the man who recently told another poster that her posts were too frequent for her to have a decent job in financial services! You continually post on here in a lofty tone, as evinced by your last post: "I'm not inclined to swallow anything appearing in the media from whatever source, without somehow filtering it, or assessing what weight might be appropriate to attach to it. That's fine if it's your favoured approach." So basically anyone who disagrees with you (even over matters of fact, as on Monday when you said the FTSE hadn't dropped and it had) clearly doesn't have your expertise and is simply accepting unfiltered information from the press? That is typical of your arrogant tone even when you're pretending to be conciliatory. So I ask again, do you have any creditable expertise to justify your continual patronising of other posters? A lot of people on here work in financial services, for a start, and as for comments like "most people would not have lived their lives or got really stressed out by reference to what the pound/dollar exchange rate is!" - well most of my writing work is undertaken for American companies and publishers, and they pay me in dollars, so it's of great interest to me!

MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendelharris, > Thanks, I also had believed that distances were > measured from the cross in front of Charing Cross > Station, but your answer still leaves me with a > little confusion. You say that the original > Eleanor's Cross stood at the "top" of Whitehall. I > assume by "top" you mean the end at which the > Cross stood. > > Which end of Whitehall is that? > MarkT Trafalgar Square end, where the equestrian statue of Charles I now stands.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah yes, ETX Capital. That well known Forex, CFD > and Spread Betting service. They have no vested > interest in stoking up speculation and/or > volatility in the market!!! Of course, experts chosen to speak by the BBC couldn't possibly know as much as you, could they? I wouldn't usually be this rude but the other day you were extremely rude to another poster, saying that the fact that she had time to post on here indicated that she couldn't have any sort of decent job in the financial sector. As you seem to have all the time in the world to post on here, care to tell us from whence your all-knowing expertise is derived?

Oh and this from the BBC this lunchtime: Analysts also warned that the rally of the past couple of days might be short-lived. "Stocks and the pound are continuing to firm but the post-Brexit reality will bite sooner or later," said Joe Rundle, head of trading at ETX Capital. "What we're seeing in the FTSE is hope in Britain being able to ride it out by remaining part of the single market. This looks like wishful thinking."

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ...The opening figures > > comparisons between a week ago and now are > > irrelevant, what's relevant is that on Friday, > the > > day after the vote, the FTSE fell from 6338 to > > 6138. It rallied slightly this morning to be > > higher than it was the previous Monday (but > still > > more than 200 points below what it closed at on > > Thursday), which I assume is what you're trying > to > > base "it hasn't dropped" on, but as of 15.57 > today > > it had fallen again to 5985. You can say it's > > market volatility if you like but claiming it > > hasn't dropped since the result was announced > is > > simply not true. ?85 billion has been wiped > off > > share values on the London exchange in the last > > two (working) days. > > Ok. In the last 2 days about ?80 billion has been > added and now the 100 index is almost back to how > it was immediately before the vote and > substantially higher than it was a week before the > vote. Odd that we don't see comments on this > forum pointing that out. All this stuff about the > crashing market and then silence when it comes > back to pretty much where it was - because that > doesn't suit the hysteria. I never said it was going to keep crashing or otherwise, I simply took issue with your assertion on Monday that the market hadn't dropped since the referendum result was announced, which was demonstrably untrue.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Close but Central London is Eleanor's Cross > outside Charing Cross Railway Station. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/a45a40f1a26bdfa > 4169986bb12d9f1a0a428f1e3.jpg > In the spirit of outnerding which I'm very pleased to see on this thread, the centre of London isn't in fact Eleanor's Cross outside Charing Cross, which is a replica of the original, built in 1863. The original Eleanor's Cross stood at the top of Whitehall where the statue of Charles I is now; if you look carefully around there you'll find a plaque marking the original site and stating that all London distances are to measured from there.